# USA will disintegrate in June



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 2, 2010)

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/11/igor-panarin-doomsday-tea-party
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123051100709638419.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/04/igor-panarin-us-will-coll_n_171725.html







tl;dr: Russian professor Igor Panarin believes that there is a 55% chance that the United States will disintegrate by 2010 due to economic crisis and "moral degradation" (basically, "oh no, gays and blacks!"). There will be 6 regions, all of which will be absorbed by other countries (and the EU), and all hell will break loose.

This guy makes me lol. He's basically saying just what the Kremlin wants him to hear. Really, the South? Going to _Mexico_? Just because there's a strong Hispanic population there doesn't mean that they're in power (also, not all Hispanic people are Mexican! Florida sure as hell ain't going to no Mexico). The Midwest being absorbed by Canada is just hilarious (Canadians, how would you feel about having Kansas and Ohio?) and his reasoning for the West joining China is ridiculous. "Oh, there's Chinese people in California and their laptops are made in China." Crap, I guess China took over Canada because there sure as hell were a lot of Chinese people when I went there (we even stayed at this hotel in this Chinatownish thing that had signs in Chinese and stuff. The invasion has begun!). Don't get me started on Hawaii going to Japan/China and Alaska going to Russia. The Northeast joining the _European_ Union is ridiculous (they won't let Morocco in and there's a huge shitstorm over Turkey; why the hell would a rump state that's separated from Europe by an ocean be let in?).

If the USA _does_ split up, it sure as heck won't be like this. And I don't see it happening that soon, either.

Can't wait until June~


----------



## Adriane (Feb 2, 2010)

South Carolina? European Union? This has got to be a joke/parody/satire/something.


----------



## Tailsy (Feb 3, 2010)

I totally read 'UCAS' and I was like THINK OF THE CHILDREN !!!


----------



## Yarnchu (Feb 3, 2010)

Why the frick would part of Jesus land join up with the EU?


----------



## spaekle (Feb 3, 2010)

I think I like this theory better.


----------



## Thanks for All the Fish (Feb 3, 2010)

TO EUROPE AWAY I'll start building my ark then


----------



## glitchedgamer (Feb 3, 2010)

So I guess I'm a future citizen of the EU. Put on some tea for me.


----------



## Zora of Termina (Feb 3, 2010)

Heh. Well I sure wouldn't mind being Canadian, but some of these? Just... what?


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 3, 2010)

In relation to the EU thing, the shitstorm with Turkey is because of their human rights abuses, not because of whether or not they're in Europe.

But I agree, this guy is a dumbshit.


----------



## BlueEew (Feb 3, 2010)

Is this information true?  I cannot see this happening at all.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 3, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> In relation to the EU thing, the shitstorm with Turkey is because of their human rights abuses, not because of whether or not they're in Europe.


This is honestly the first time I've heard of this. o.o First thing that people talk about when you mention Turkey and the EU? "Oh, but they're not in Europe." I've never heard anyone talk about the human rights abuses, which kind of sucks.



> South Carolina? European Union? This has got to be a joke/parody/satire/something.


This is real, all right... Unfortunately.


----------



## Autumn (Feb 3, 2010)

I personally would like to be in the EU but that will happen only when hell freezes over.


----------



## Meowzie-chan (Feb 3, 2010)

... ...
... ...
Okay, Tea party activists / Green party members, whatever differences exist between the two, I don't really care, but they're crazy enough without crackpot theories from other countries. They don't need Russians helping them make less sense than they do now. They do just fine causing an unneeded stir on their own. 

Oh, what webs we weave when politics we play...


----------



## Tyranitar freak (Feb 3, 2010)

Why do I doubt this, oh, yeah, OBAMA! I've never heard any reasoning so stupid. See, america may have stuff from foreign nations, but that dosen't mean a thing, because people import things, and just because people hate eachother, it dosen't mean the US will disolve!


----------



## Flareth (Feb 3, 2010)

Zora of Termina said:


> Heh. Well I sure wouldn't mind being Canadian, but some of these? Just... what?


I'd end up European. I envy ya.

But this is just...totally fake. This won't happen. People are just trying to get our panties in a bunch....


----------



## departuresong (Feb 3, 2010)

Hey, Canada's cool. I dig this map.


----------



## departuresong (Feb 3, 2010)

Although in a few years I guess I'll be China's bitch, since I'm moving to California.


----------



## Harlequin (Feb 3, 2010)

... said:


> This is honestly the first time I've heard of this. o.o First thing that people talk about when you mention Turkey and the EU? "Oh, but they're not in Europe." I've never heard anyone talk about the human rights abuses, which kind of sucks.


There was this whole _genocide_ thing and the Turks won't admit it's happened. Among other things. That's why they're not allowed into the EU -- I think it's been stated that if they improve their human rights they'll be allowed in.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 3, 2010)

Uh yeah I was gonna comment on that Turkey thing too because well. We don't disallow people from joining just because they're not on the European continent, it's because of human rights abuse, the fact that they have the death penalty (a pre-requisite for joining the EU is abolishing it) etc.
I mean as far as middle Eastern countries go Turkey's pretty cool and secular but NOT ENOUGH FOR US HEH

Right now we're in doubt about letting Iceland join too but lol that's because they have a massive debt and we already have enough of a task pumping money into Eastern Europe to try and de-shittify it so we can't really spare the expense.

This map makes me giggle but tbh I'm not sure whether it'd be a bad thing.



			
				Flareth said:
			
		

> I'd end up European. I envy ya.


Hey >:c


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 3, 2010)

Harlequin said:


> There was this whole _genocide_ thing and the Turks won't admit it's happened.


See, nobody ever mentions this! I knew about the Armenian genocide (and the Turkish government's denial that it happened), but I never knew that that was a reason they weren't let in. Also knew about the death penalty (and I knew that was one thing they'd have to change). Really, all I ever hear is "IN EUROPE" "NO IN ASIA"



			
				Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
			
		

> We don't disallow people from joining just because they're not on the European continent





> Morocco applied to join the then-European Communities on 20 July 1987. The application was rejected by Community foreign ministers as they did not consider Morocco to be a European country and hence could not join.





> tbh I'm not sure whether it'd be a bad thing.


US splitting up might suck if the South becomes a country (Jesusland?) because then while the other states (countries?) get to do what they want, the South will just continue to suck and that's not cool. 
Also, I don't want to live in Mexico.


----------



## Tailsy (Feb 3, 2010)

to be honest the EU would be like ":| THE UK IS ENOUGH WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER ONE OF YOU ENGLISH-SPEAKING SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES"


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 3, 2010)

"did not consider Morocco to be a European country" is not the same as "did not consider Morocco to be on the European continent". Azerbaijan, for example, which is very much in Asia, would probably have a decent chance of joining the EU.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 3, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> "did not consider Morocco to be a European country" is not the same as "did not consider Morocco to be on the European continent". Azerbaijan, for example, which is very much in Asia, would probably have a decent chance of joining the EU.


So a country can be considered European without being in Europe? I'm a little confused at this because every argument I've ever heard has been "oh no but Turkey's not _in_ Europe so of course it can't join the EU!" and then the counterargument "But there's that little enclave in Europe so _yeah_ duh Turkey has the opportunity to join!". So yeah, I guess there's more to the issue than I've heard.


----------



## Jetx (Feb 3, 2010)

I have not bothered to read into it much but this looks completely ridiculous to me.


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 3, 2010)

> So a country can be considered European without being in Europe?


Yup. If memory serves, Azerbaijan was described as being European for "geopolitical" reasons, whatever that means.



> I'm a little confused at this because every argument I've ever heard has been "oh no but Turkey's not in Europe so of course it can't join the EU!" and then the counterargument "But there's that little enclave in Europe so yeah duh Turkey has the opportunity to join!".


It's not an enclave, there's just a channel separating the two halves of Turkey (an enclave would be entirely within another country's borders). But yes, that is hardly the problem, and anyone who thinks so is, quite frankly, grossly misinformed.


----------



## Ether's Bane (Feb 5, 2010)

Will never happen.


----------



## Harley Quinn (Feb 6, 2010)

Mudkip said:


> South Carolina? European Union? This has got to be a joke/parody/satire/something.


I know, right?


----------



## Scyther (Feb 6, 2010)

Heck, I'm excited. I wish this guy knew what he was talking about.


----------



## surskitty (Feb 9, 2010)

Meowzie-chan said:


> ... ...
> ... ...
> Okay, Tea party activists / Green party members, whatever differences exist between the two, I don't really care, but they're crazy enough without crackpot theories from other countries. They don't need Russians helping them make less sense than they do now. They do just fine causing an unneeded stir on their own.
> 
> Oh, what webs we weave when politics we play...


Wait, what?  Green party's very liberal and thinks that the two-party system should be thrown out because it's stupid.  I still don't know what the hell tea party activists WANT, but they keep complaining about how the republican party isn't religious (as in fundamentalist christian) enough for them and they willingly call themselves teabaggers.  Tea party supports Palin.  Green party doesn't want to support anyone because that's buying into the system.


----------



## Dr Frank (Feb 9, 2010)

Will not happen this year, if at all for a long time, and definitely not through the ways he stated.



> But it's his bleak forecast for the U.S. that is music to the ears of the Kremlin, which in recent years has blamed Washington for everything from instability in the Middle East to the global financial crisis. Mr. Panarin's views also fit neatly with the Kremlin's narrative that Russia is returning to its rightful place on the world stage after the weakness of the 1990s, when many feared that the country would go economically and politically bankrupt and break into separate territories.


Right, so USA is, in my view, at least partially responsible for some global turbulence, but Russia back on global stage? Har har. If anyone rises to world dominance to fill up the power vacuum left by the collapse of USA, if that were possible (which, I think, is slowly but surely inevitable) would be Japan. SUPah mega-zorp robots and naval tank assault bad CnC reference


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 9, 2010)

> Okay, Tea party activists / Green party members, whatever differences exist between the two, I don't really care, but they're crazy enough without crackpot theories from other countries. They don't need Russians helping them make less sense than they do now. They do just fine causing an unneeded stir on their own.


The Green Party and the tea party movement are about as far apart politically as it is possible to be.



> If anyone rises to world dominance to fill up the power vacuum left by the collapse of USA, if that were possible (which, I think, is slowly but surely inevitable) would be Japan.


What? Never mind the USA collapsing, China will be the single world power in fifty years regardless.


----------



## Vladimir Putin's LJ (Feb 9, 2010)

Yeah, seriously. Japan?


----------



## goldenquagsire (Feb 9, 2010)

Vladimir Putin's LJ said:


> Yeah, seriously. Japan?


someone's been watching too many cartoons

protip: japan does not actually have any gundams


----------



## Adriane (Feb 9, 2010)

goldenquagsire said:


> protip: japan does not actually have any gundams


Fifty quid says they do in twenty years.


----------



## Dr Frank (Feb 10, 2010)

100 squids (quids?) says they already do and they have kept it secret. For their instantaneous take-over-da-world scheme. And it was a _Red Alert_ reference, I consider myself lucky for never seeing (being able to see) Gundam, from what I've heard of it.

And anyway, I don't see in any manner how China can rise to an, er, uber world power. It might be very powerful right now, but I have reasons to doubt that it could progress further.


----------



## ultraviolet (Feb 10, 2010)

> It might be very powerful right now, but I have reasons to doubt that it could progress further.


they're already leaning on k-rudd here in aus to try and push for internet censorship, unfortunately.


----------



## Adriane (Feb 10, 2010)

Dr Frank said:


> 100 squids (quids?)


Pounds sterling.


----------



## goldenquagsire (Feb 10, 2010)

Mudkip said:


> Fifty quid says they do in twenty years.


We might get BuCUEs in twenty years. Hell, even Tekkamen (or at least far less powerful, flashy versions) are somewhat feasible. But sadly, bipedal mecha are never ever going to happen thanks to a shitty little thing called 'physics'. :(



> I consider myself lucky for never seeing (being able to see) Gundam, from what I've heard of it.


(some) Gundam is actually really awesome tho'. >:(


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 10, 2010)

> It might be very powerful right now, but I have reasons to doubt that it could progress further.


It's already the world's strongest economy (until recently, it was second not to the US but to Germany, which I find interesting). I'd love to hear your reasons.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 10, 2010)

strongest by what criterion


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 10, 2010)

Watershed said:


> strongest by what criterion


er, I meant to say exporter. My mistake. By GDP, it's the second-strongest economy.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 11, 2010)

problem is that no criterion really covers "richest country"


----------



## Dr Frank (Feb 12, 2010)

Damn, internet screwed up yesterday. Anyway:



Vixie said:


> Pounds sterling.


So that's what it was, thanks.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 13, 2010)

I made this to pass time. It's hopefully at least somewhat more realistic than the Russian dude's;


----------



## Yarnchu (Feb 13, 2010)

Holy Democratic Republic needs to be renamed Jesusland. But yeah, looks pretty good to me.


----------



## Autumn (Feb 13, 2010)

lol @ holy empire of deseret

although they might just call it deseret and deseret alone


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (Feb 14, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> mapmapmap


Excellent map, much more accurate than the Russian professor's. I may simply believe he views America as a radical Capitalist Soviet Russia and wishes to see a break up.



> kingdom of hawaii


I cannot wait to see more kings that are human manifestations of energy attacks from Japanese children's anime.


----------



## Shiny Grimer (Feb 14, 2010)

extreme lol at Pacific Corporate State of Alaska.


----------



## hopeandjoy (Feb 14, 2010)

That's it! I'm convincing my family to move to Maryland before Virgina becomes part of Jesusland.

Then again, Northern Virginia might refuse to leave.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 14, 2010)

... said:


> The Most Serene Republic of Florida?
> 
> I vote for South Florida becoming part of Latin America. It should be called "North Cuba". Separate from real Cuba, of course (the Floridians like capitalism too much, don'tcha know 8D) but close in enough in culture and language to _confuse_ people!
> 
> Also extreme lol at Pacific Corporate State of Alaska.


Most Serene Republic means the state puts a lot of emphasis on its sovereignty. I only picked it because I didn't want to repeat anything else.


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (Feb 14, 2010)

... said:


> Also extreme lol at Pacific Corporate State of Alaska.


Oh yes, you would see the giant Texan Oil Barons in the far north. Instead of leather they wear sealskin.


----------



## Sesquipedalian! (Feb 14, 2010)

... said:


> Also extreme lol at Pacific Corporate State of Alaska.


Oh yes, you would see the giant Texan Oil Barons in the far north. Instead of leather they wear sealskin.


----------



## H-land (Feb 17, 2010)

No offense, Ebil Snorlax, but I've got my own take on things. (I hope that you won't mind that I blatantly edited your map.)





Reasoning behind my groupings:
CASCADIA: Pretty much just the (generally) liberal arboreal west coast.
TEXAS: I cannot imagine Texas leaving the United States only to join a new union. I figure that if Texas leaves America, it's going it alone.
MÉXICO NUEVO: Latinos seem to dominate a region of some size north of the US-Mexico border. While not all Latinos are Mexican, a Latino union would be believable, and historically, this has been (or at least included) New Mexico.
TRANS-COLORADO: Honestly, I'm not too sure myself about this region. My general hypothesis is that in this region, while the same political attitude does not prevail as in either Cascadia or Ogallania, neither are Mormons or Latinos prevalent forces in the region.
DESERTET: Mormons. That's about it.
JESUSLAND: From what I've experienced from my time in this part of the country, in general, Jesus is big. Seriously. My biggest gripe with this general area's representation on Snorlax's map was that he seemed to think that  none of the Great Lakes states or West Virginia would join it. They would. They've got parts far too rural and pious not to. I spent a week in Terra Haute Indiana once. I'd imagine that Cairo Illinois and Louisville Kentucky would have similar vibes. 
OGALLANIA: While the Great Plains aren't quite as zealous as Jesusland is, they're still pretty... boring. This union would include most of the rest of rural America (that is, what wouldn't be in Jesusland).
SSA: Generally, this region seems to tend toward the liberal end of the American political spectrum, and one might predict it to stay intact for this reason. Personally, I'd consider this the valid successor to the United States.
FLORIDA CUBANA: Frankly, the name's probably totally wrong. Anyway, I don't know what to say about this. It looks right to me, but I've really only ever been to Florida once, and that was just a trip through the everglades to kill time between when our ship docked and when our plane left. And the Everglades do not make a culture, let me tell you. (Neat trip, eh, sure. Cultural experience, no.)
HAWAI'I: Self explanatory.
ALASKA: I envision Palin as Prime Minister or President. Or Dictator. Who's to say?


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 17, 2010)

To be honest, I can see several basic flaws with your map right off;

1) It completely ignores state boundaries. While the country obviously wouldn't split right along state lines, there should be boundaries which are noticeably former state lines. The only state line you've used is a small bit of Texas's.
2) The boundaries you've drawn are at best, purely geographical, whereas if the US split, it would disintegrate on political lines.
3) Your Deseret is centred on Idaho, which doesn't actually have a high amount of Mormons. Mormonland is Utah, South California, East Nevada, Arizona and maybe a little bit of south-eastern Idaho and south-western Nebraska.
4) Even though you say that Texas would go out as its own Republic, you actually include less than half of Texas in your Republic.
5) Your Latino union is based around New Mexico and Arizona, both of which have a high percentage of Hispanics in their population, 45% and 29% respectively. In both states, Hispanics are a minority, albeit a significant minority. Hispanic Americans are from a wide variety of backgrounds, with vastly different cultures, some of which share animosity for one another. The idea of a Latino union is therefore unlikely.
6) Your Trans-Colorado goes right across Nevada and Utah with only a tiny portion within Colorado itself. You claim that this nation would exist because of a lack of Mormon or Latino influence, but it's dominated by two states which are a significant part of the Mormon Corridor, the Mormon equivalent of the Bible Belt.
7) Your Jesusland is based entirely on Christianity, ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of denominations of Christianity, some of which bitterly hate each other and wouldn't want to unite to share a country.
8) Florida Cubana just seems like an asspull to do _something_ with Florida, without any valid reason behind it.
9) In an environment where the country is splitting, it's fairly unlikely that the part of the Socialist States on the Northern Peninsula would stay part of the Socialist States, especially since there's already a relatively strong separatist movement for the part of Michigan located there to become another state called Superior.
10) Also in relation to the Socialist States, liberal =/= socialist.

Also, in relation to your comments on my "Jesusland", Cairo actually is in it, as is the entire state of Kentucky and most of West Virginia. The reason the Great Lakes states aren't part of the Holy Democratic Republic is that due to their proximity to Washington, D.C., the federal government would make moves to secure them over the other states because there's little use in California being under the federal government in D.C. if D.C. is completely surrounded by another country.

I used this map as my basis, if you compare it to mine and your's, you'll see what I was talking about.

All in all, the map seems based entirely on personal opinion without little consideration for demographics, politics, etc. and you've generally misplaced locations by several thousand miles.


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 17, 2010)

> Your Latino union is based around New Mexico and Arizona, both of which have a high percentage of Hispanics in their population, 45% and 29% respectively. In both states, Hispanics are a minority, albeit a significant minority. Hispanic Americans are from a wide variety of backgrounds, with vastly different cultures, some of which share animosity for one another. The idea of a Latino union is therefore unlikely.


I'm pretty sure Hispanics are a plurality in New Mexico, actually.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 17, 2010)

opaltiger said:


> I'm pretty sure Hispanics are a plurality in New Mexico, actually.


I was basing my percentage on the 2008 census, so I guess it's possible it changed.


----------



## opaltiger (Feb 17, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> I was basing my percentage on the 2008 census, so I guess it's possible it changed.


From 2007:



			
				wiki said:
			
		

> According to estimates from the United States Census Bureau's Population Estimate Program, on July 1, 2007 the population of New Mexico was 1,969,915, and the number of New Mexicans of these single races were: White, 1,663,821 (84.46%); Black, 56,083 (2.85%); American Indian or Alaskan Native, 186,256 (9.46%); Asian, 27,722 (1.41%); and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 2,787 (0.14%). There were 33,246 (1.69%) of two or more races. Whites are broken into Hispanic and non-Hispanic. There were 874,688 (44.40%) Hispanics. White persons not Hispanic 833,274 (42.3%).


I did say plurality, not majority, the point being that they are not a minority.


----------



## Tarvos (Feb 17, 2010)

the point being i want my tacos back dammit


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 17, 2010)

@opaltiger: Ah, my mistake.


----------



## H-land (Feb 18, 2010)

Teh Ebil Snorlax said:


> To be honest, I can see several basic flaws with your map right off [...] you've generally misplaced locations by several thousand miles.


There's a reason for this, you see: Without the original, I had practically no reference for where anything was. I didn't center Deseret around Idaho on purpose, believe me. As such, a revision may be well deserved, but honestly, I'm not sure that I can take this seriously enough to spend the time to remake my map.

The reason that in several cases I have shunned state borders (even in cases where I might have known where state borders fell) for less obvious ones is that I would imagine that in the event of a federal collapse, civil war would break loose. If war were to break loose, borders would surely be changed.

A final inquiry: how is flaw three a flaw at all? Names aren't always like they should be. Take the Democratic People's Republic of Korea- North Korea, that is- which isn't a people's democracy at all, and includes at the very most, two thirds of what is actually Korea. 

So yeah, that's about all I have to say, said or implied. I think.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 18, 2010)

> 3) Your Deseret is centred on Idaho, which doesn't actually have a high amount of Mormons. Mormonland is Utah, South California, East Nevada, Arizona and maybe a little bit of south-eastern Idaho and south-western Nebraska.


This is flaw three, what's the issue?


----------



## H-land (Feb 18, 2010)

...I meant four.


----------



## Teh Ebil Snorlax (Feb 19, 2010)

The point had nothing to do with the name, you said that if Texas left the union, it would go out as a separate republic and I was commenting that in your map, Texas didn't actually go out as a republic, half of it did, with no explanation.


----------



## Drowzee64 (Feb 25, 2010)

I can't imagine Texas teaming up with Mexico. A lot of people in Texas are currently pissed at Mexico for illegal immigration, drug dealing, etc.


----------



## Lucas666 (Mar 1, 2010)

Nooooooo! Americans are going to part of the greatest country in the world? Kansas will NEVER join up with us Canadians, or I will die!


----------



## departuresong (Mar 1, 2010)

Drowzee64 said:


> I can't imagine Texas teaming up with Mexico. A lot of people in Texas are currently pissed at Mexico for illegal immigration, drug dealing, etc.


I'm going to go out on a whim here and say that's the minority.


----------



## Tarvos (Mar 1, 2010)

what's whim consist of, AK buddy


----------

